Suggesting civil union AND marriage provide more rights to gay than straight couples is simply word play. Civil union (and Domestic Partnership, another marriage-lite sop offered in a few states) was a poor compromise and probably still exists for business purposes for whoever chooses to use it, gay or straight. Marriage is marriage. And as of now, one size fits all.

Suggesting health issues should be a consideration in marriage between gay partners is also a specious argument, in the face of the history of most of the U.S. states that back in the day required both partners to pass a blood test before applying for a marriage license, but almost all of those requirements have been dropped by the states. Few have such a tests now but when they were in place they were in place to reveal STDs. Why? Were tests required to alert an innocent partner to the misbehavior of an intended mate? Were they there to protect the progeny of such a marriage, to avoid infecting a child at birth? Were health departments requiring them simply to track sexual activity? It seems most likely they were in place for convoluted reasons - because sanctimonious individuals wanted to pry into the private lives of strangers. That is why "health" and "marriage" were uncoupled. And is why such a false equivalence argument is, as I say, specious.